Ask 411 Wrestling 01.15.14: X-Pac Heat, Cold Garbage, FUJI VICE!, More!
Posted by Mathew Sforcina on 01.15.2014
Did Andre the Giant ever beat the Ultimate Warrior? Did Eric Bischoff ever plan for the nWo to take over Nitro? Is Bob Holly a bully? Is there such a thing as "X-Pac Heat?" All this and more covered this week in Ask 411 Wrestling!
Welcome to the only column that is kinda torn about Orton attacking John Cena Sr (I mean, OK, it's almost been 7 years, but on the other hand, it's been almost 7 years…) Ask 411 Wrestling! I am your party host Mathew Sforcina, and I shall not be here next week. Don't worry, Ryan Byers will be filling in for me. But this is another two days job, and done with a headache for day one and wahwahwah I complain a lot. Anyway, got the news out of the way, let's get down to the important stuff of questions about Pro Wrestling!
The Von Erich Boys: I love how someone says this was one of my best columns ever despite having such a blatant factual error as Kerry Von Erich being the oldest Von Erich son. He was fourth, behind Jack, Kevin and David. I clearly was running on fumes at that point, and fell into the "he was the most important thus he must be oldest" trap of thinking that a First Child has.
George Steele's Hammerlock: Ron managed to stumble on the one he remembered, at about 20 minutes for the match to begin. So clearly the gimmick happened more than once.
APinOz Calls Me To Task: I'll just let him correct me and accept my talking down quietly.
Your description of the famous angle in Dallas was almost spot-on. But the crucial part you skipped was that Michael Hayes turned his back on Kerry and was leaving the cage. Kerry went after him and Flair shoved Kerry into Hayes, who then "thought" Kerry had attacked him. And THAT'S when Gordy slammed the cage door on Kerry's head. Also, I think Kevin and David were older than Kerry.
To the best of my knowledge, the Clash of the Champions 1 match between Ric Flair and Sting was always scheduled to be a 45 minute time limit. I remember that this was a "special" time limit for the purposes of TV (Clash of the Champions being a brand new concept at the time). I don't think the match was reduced by 15 minutes on the show - it went as booked. I believe the idea at the time was that Flair and Sting would engage in a few 60 minute broadways on house shows after the Clash with the idea that Flair was desperately hanging onto the title and Sting was getting stronger with every match.
Well, I didn't find anything one way or the other, I just remember hearing Flair say how he wished they had done 60, thus I assume it was a cut down job. If it was the plan to do 45 minutes, then why not read all the judges notes? But I got no proof so,,, Yeah.
The Trivia Crown
I am a pro wrestler. To win my first singles title reign, I had to win it from my wrestling teacher. One of the most controversial angles I was involved was when I brutally hurt another wrestler as a way to avenge a very tragic situation, as many people still don't know whether it was a work or a shoot. I have something in common with Vader and The Rock, have a connection with Michael Jackson and my signature wrestling move can be used for food and if you translated in English, it can sound like a certain body part. PS, I share the same name and nickname with a well known defensive player . WHO AM I?
British Bullfrog does indeed have it.
To win my first singles title reign, I had to win it from my wrestling teacher.
-Beat trainer Terry Funk to win his first title (Florida HW Champ)
One of the most controversial angles I was involved was when I brutally hurt another wrestler as a way to avenge a very tragic situation, as many people still don't know whether it was a work or a shoot.
-Destroyed Invader III as revenge for the murder of Bruiser Brody
I have something in common with Vader and The Rock,
-Nicknames all have "bull" in them
have a connection with Michael Jackson
-entrance theme was "Beat It".
and my signature wrestling move can be used for food and if you translated in English, it can sound like a certain body part.
I share the same name and nickname with a well known defensive player
-Manny Fernandez of the Dolphins!
You are Manny Fernandez!
I ask the question this week. Yay.
What am I? I'm a title. The loser of the tournament final to crown me for the first time is known more for tag team wrestling, despite this title being a singles title (and one of his well known partners holding me on more than one occasion). Exact dates for some of my changes are not known. Twice I was vacated due to my holder winning a more important title. The man who has held me the most times doesn't make the top ten for total length of reigns. First time I changed hands live on screen was at a show that was important for a few reasons. One guy had over a decade between reigns. Over a dozen world champions have held me, for some slightly dubious value of the term ‘World Champion'. Oh, and the way I ended my run was rather unusual. What am I?
Getting Down To Business
APinOz also had some follow ups from last week, starting with a sorta opinion question, but screw it. My column, my rules.
Hi Mathew, welcome back.
Got a couple of questions: You said that the Streak will never be broken. Is that your opinion, wish or idea? Personally, I think not ending the Streak contravenes Wrestling booking 101, in which the guy who does beat Undertaker at Wrestlemania is a made man. Why would WWE pass up an opportunity like that?
Because it kills future drawing power for Taker and Wrestlemania, and they are so paranoid about guys getting bigger than the company that they'd never do it, and if they would they would just have whoever it is lose to everyone else so no-one gets over.
I don't believe the streak will end, I wouldn't do it if I was running the company, but of course like everyone I have ideas as to who and how and why to ending it. But I don't believe it's happening.
Did Kevin Sullivan have a reputation as a bit of a sadist when it came to beating up jobbers? I've seen quite a few of his matches from Florida, or in the NWA in the late 80s-early 90s and he seems to take a lot of liberties in squash matches. There was also a few really ugly incidents in Smoky Mountain Wrestling such as the Kanemura angle that seemed to go right over the top.
That has little to do with the topic at hand, just wanted to share.
Anyway, Sullivan wasn't so much a sadist as he was old school. From a recap of one of his shoot interviews…
He would stretch guys a bit first to see if they were willing to do what it takes for the business. He insists that his whole philosophy was based on people believing that the business was real and that they were laying it in on each other. He talks about how he would even stiff Andre the Giant and Bruiser Brody. The one guy who he intentionally screwed around with was a guy who came in during the height of the Florida territory who had little to do with the business and was a bit of a dick, claiming that he'd carry Kevin and make him look good. He happened to be a teller at the bank where Kevin had his account, so he busted the guy open hardway with a chair to keep the guy from going "I carried this guy to a good match the other night" when he came in to cash his check.
Sullivan was stiff, not dangerous. There is a difference. I have never heard a story of Sullivan injuring someone deliberately, even against a guy like Benoit whom he would have ‘legitimate' reasons to do so. Sullivan would beat you up, sure. You'd be hurting for a while afterwards. But you'd recover, and if you came back and didn't complain, then he'd know you were in for the long haul. That's the logic. But he wouldn't break your leg or anything.
At least, I haven't heard of him being a dick like that. Perhaps a reader will disagree with me.
PS What was William Regal's famous New Year's Resolution? (From last week's trivia question)
"Do you know what my New Year's resolution is going to be? It's to wake up a half hour earlier so that I can hate you more."
Evil Jeff wants to talk about The Rock.
No, not the movie star, the guy who made these Gems.
got another one for you:
Whilst nursing my hangover on New Year's day, I put Wrestlemania IV on - the first time I've ever watched it all the way through - and one thing really stuck out.
Well ok, two things really stuck out, the first being how hot Miss Elisabeth was, the second was how impressive Don Muraco was.
I don't think I've really seen much of 'The Rock' before, but not only did he have a good look, but he also appeared to be able to work pretty well. Particularly against Ted DiBiase, he was hitting all his big power moves a hell of a lot more 'crisply' than most of the other talent on the card that night.
So my question is, what happened to him? He seemed to drop of the planet shortly after Wrestlemania (according to my memory of that time, anyway) yet he seemed to have all the tools required to go higher up the card and have a great career.
Thanks as ever
Well the thing is that you've come in at the tail end of his run. He began in WWF in 1981, he'd been in the company for several years as a heel, having some pretty impressive moments, like the cage match with Snuka that inspired half of ECW it seems. He'd worked with Hogan, been IC champ, he'd done a lot before he turned face in 86, which he hated, he didn't like working as a face. But he was decent at the role, and he made a clear effort to change his persona to fit, but the thing is that as a face midcarder, in 88? You were miles behind Warrior, since Warrior was the guy they clearly were going to be building the company around for years to come.
So Muraco was useful and a good midcarder, but he had a clear upper limit to how high he was going to go. You add in that he's not that happy with it, and then the kicker, on a tour of Europe he apparently acted really badly (according to Bret Hart in his book) and so he got fired over that.
Basically he had been around for a while, and so if he stuffed up, which he did, he could be cut with little lost from the WWF's point of view. And hey, he helped Eastern Championship Wrestling get going, so his post WWF career wasn't totally wasted…
Todd asks about people losing respect for Andre The Giant. So, obviously people who hadn't seen him drink.
People often compare Undertaker to Andre the Giant in terms of legacy and respect which got me thinking, was Andre/Warrior matches as if Undertaker put over Ryback in 5mins a few times. Think of the outrage. Now I know there was no internet back then but surely Andre fans and the respect they had for him must have been gutted/turned off wrestling by such a turn of events?
Thanks for your great work as always,
Well, OK, pretty much all of the Andre/Warrior matches were like this…
But Andre did get ONE win over him…
Now, the thing is, I wasn't really around the business at this time. I was 7 when Warrior was regularly beating Andre, and on the other side of the country. But by the time Warrior was doing that, most everyone had seen Hogan slam Andre, the mystique was gone slightly. Andre wasn't untouchable any more. And unlike Taker, he was working injured all the time, so there wasn't a backstage requirement to keep him protected. As for the fans…
Andre was bigger than life, Andre was a major draw, Andre was huge, but he wasn't respected in quite the same way from the fans, I don't think. You didn't have the same level of "you're one of the best wrestlers of all time" respect, it was more just "DAMN You're Huge!" Which is respect, but not quite the same. So him jobbing to Warrior (if you saw it, it was mostly house shows after all) wasn't quite a big a deal as Taker losing to say Khali or something on PPV.
But I'm more than willing to be corrected on this one. Did you lose respect for Andre after Warrior squashed him? Do let us know…
Connor wants to talk about Bob Holly being a bully.
What was the deal with Hardcore Holly being such a bully? was he just jealous that newer guys were coming into the fold, i heard he beat up Kennedy, Rene Dupree over a parking ticket and injured Matt Cappotelli, guy seems like a major douche
Yes and no. There's always two sides to every story, and what is one man's forthright honesty is another man's rude dickheadedness. So here's the two main viewpoints of Bob Holly.
Pro Bob Holly: Holly was never a bully, he was just old school. After all, if he was going around injuring people on purpose, wouldn't he have gotten fired? He just worked stiff, like Sullivan and most of the old guard. Being able to work safely but still hitting hard is a lost art, and one wrestling needs more of. He was always able to take as hard as he could give, and clearly he was doing something right, since the front office liked him and kept him around for so long. Dupree was punishment as metered out in Wrestler's Court, Cappotelli was just whining and Kennedy is also a crying bitch who got Holly fired for no good reason. Bob Holly is not a bad man, after all, you've never met him, so how on earth can you claim he's a bully?
Anti Bob Holly: Bob Holly is a whiny bully bitch. The guy had no charisma and was just passible in the ring (having a good dropkick doesn't count for THAT much) but because he sucked up to the bosses and told tales, he got kept around and protected, so he could continue to take liberties in the ring. There's a difference between teaching young rookies respect and beating people up, and Holly would cross it constantly. Saying that Cappotelli shouldn't have complained because ‘his feelings were hurt' and that if all he got was a black eye then that's fine shows that Holly had no respect for anyone who wasn't on ‘his level'. And the guy got fired because he was stealing pain pills from other people's bags. Fuck Bob Holly.
So which is it? Well look, here's a collection of fellow wrestlers being asked this question.
Certainly when Bob was down here in Australia recently, I didn't hear anyone complain about him. And while I've never been a fan of the locker room "you gotta get beat up to prove yourself" mentality, I understand it. And yeah, bruises and black eyes happen, and while I'm not about to start giving them out deliberately since I'm a marshmallow, they have happened and I've apologized but complaining about it is never a good idea.
I can see where the Anti-Holly logic comes from, but I don't think he's a bully for the sake of it. He may ‘bully' but only as part of the old school mentality. Holly beating people up is not the worst thing that happens in wrestling. He's just old school, for better or worse.
Cody has a few questions.
1. When I was younger wrestlers used to always stomp when they punched but now they don't! What is the deal with that? Same thing with doing ten punches in the turnbuckle! What is the deal?
You want to see ten punches in the corner, go to an indy show, they happen there a lot. I seem to get hit with 10 punches every damn match…
Guys don't stomp as obviously because fans noticed that they were stomping. Now they tend to just hit hard in safe locations or use kicks or forearms, guys don't tend to punch with the stomp for extra noise anymore because people noticed the noise. So far no-one's really noticed slapping the leg on kicks, so if we can…
2. If wrestlers spend so much time wrestling all the time how come so many of them are still fat? I mean come on! What is the deal there?
Hey, I'm in shape! Round is a shape!
Anyway, some wrestlers gain weight because they eat poorly. Maintaining an ideal body shape is input and output. You need to work hard at training (wrestling itself, unless it's a very long match, is high impact but short. The hours in the gym are what count) but also you need to eat a solid diet, or else you end up gaining flab from all the fat and stuff you consume. Travelling and eating well isn't the easiest thing to do. There's only so many times you can hit up Subway…
3. Do you think Goldberg did anything special to protect himself before standing in the middle of all those fireworks? Its like that stuff hurts! You know?
… There's a really dark joke in here somewhere. I won't be making it.
(Well, not directly)
Anyway, he has stated, supposedly, that it did hurt. However, it wasn't a direct blast from a jet airplane or the flames like Taker suffered that one time. They were like sparklers, which if you've ever played with, the sparks do sting, but they go out quickly and don't burn you. He might have poured water over himself right before coming out, but I think he just put up with it. It hurt but didn't kill him, obviously.
So here's a bunch of topical videos I gotta include before they go out of date.
Note to WWE: More of this please.
And finally a Jake MV which is very cool.
Sticking to WCW, Dilyan has a few questions about it.
Hey, Massive Q. Good to have you back. Some WCW questions headed your way.
1. Was a WCW/nWo brand extension planned as early as 96-97? I know that they did the whole nWo Monday Nitro show, where the ratings went down the crapper (and rightfully so, it was horrible), but it didn't seem like a major setback to such a grand scheme of things. Eric Bischoff has implied this in interviews, where he said something to the effect of: "I wasn't building a stable with the nWo, I was building a roster". I've read his book, but can't remember if he elaborated on it or not. The Wolfpack and B&W split also seemed to be that type of storyline (they had to have a major feud on the nWo brand and it looks like they did it without an actual brand extension). Is there any truth to these speculations and if so, why didn't they ultimately pull the trigger on the whole deal?
Yes, sort of. Although he's said it wasn't his idea, there was a clear intent to create the nWo as a separate brand, and to make Nitro into nWo Nitro, with WCW having Thunder, so that Bischoff/Turner would have the #1 and #2 wrestling promotions in the world. Another possibility was that Nitro would be split, with WCW getting the first part then the nWo getting the section that ran against Raw, there's conflicting reports as to when or what was going to happen. Or even some people say Thunder was to become the nWo show, which I doubt, because there were a LOT of nWo Monday Nitro shirts made, they kept popping up from time to time on nWo members, so clearly nWo were going to get some part of Nitro.
As for why they didn't pull the trigger? The December 22nd, 1997 Nitro. nWo Nitro occurred.
That episode of Nitro tanked, and tanked HARD. Given how Souled Out had also failed as a stand alone PPV, that was the point where the plan got a bullet in the head. But yes, WCW and nWo were planned to become two ‘separate' wrestling companies.
2. The intro to the first Souled Out PPV (correct me if I'm wrong), featured the nWo strolling through town on the backs of garbage trucks and Hogan cutting some weird promo from that position. I wasn't watching at the time, so please explain if there was some logic behind it (yeah, WCW and logic, weird, huh?), or did they just do it for the sake of it.
I think everyone BUT Hogan rode on the garbage trucks.
Anyway, why this intro? Well, had you seen anything like that before in wrestling before? No, you hadn't. It was totally different, totally unlike anything that had come before it, and that was the point. The nWo was supposed to represent everything that WCW wasn't, to be the antithesis of what WCW was. WCW was tradition, nWo spat on tradition then spray painted across it. WCW was pure wrestling? nWo was brawling and weapons and run ins. WCW was old school and good but kinda stuffy and weak? nWo was new school and bad and cool and strong. WCW had traditional camera work and presentation, nWo was bizarre angles, random stuttering and just looked and sounded unlike anything that had come before it. That was the overall logic, the specific was that the nWo was taking out the trash, the trash being WCW and their opponents that evening…
3. I don't get all the Fat Tony hate. He always seemed spot on doing commentary, in the sense that Schievone presented everything from the viewpoint of the average fan. One could argue that JR did the same thing, but he was considered a guy with more wrestling experience, etc. so it doesn't quite fit. Tony was great in his 3-man team - Tenay being the play-by-play guy, Heenan/Zbyszko providing the color and Tony hyping up everything and anything, really. Has the hate accumulated over the years after WCW folded, or was it something that was already there at the time?
That's it for now. Keep exhaling the pure energy of a wrestling trivia god.
No no, it was there at the time. If anything it has dissipated slightly, he was, while not quite on the level of Cole, hated at the time. The problem wasn't so much Tony, since when Tony was on and focused he was perfectly acceptable. The problem was Tony + Bischoff in his ear. Tony was ordered to focus on the main event, to ignore what was going on in the ring and to hype every Nitro as the greatest one of all time. The constant stupidity he had to display with every fake Sting, the constant ignoring of matches, the endless nWo talk, all this built up as Nitro went along, it all got on the nerves of the fans, so he became hated while Nitro was still on the air.
One Man's (Important) Opinion
Brian has some interesting opinion questions for us. Well, me mostly…
Although you don't hear it much anymore, I've always believed the term "X-Pac Heat" was the single dumbest "smart" fan creation. So I'm a heel. My job is to make you hate me and when the crowd responds exactly like I want them to, the "smart" fans develop a sixth sense and decipher that the crowd is actually booing because they hate me for different reasons all together. So what's the difference? Isn't a reaction, just a reaction? As a wrestler, do you believe there is some imaginary line between heat and X-Pac heat and if so, how can you tell when you've crossed that line as a worker? And in a similar vein, if X-Pac heat is real, wouldn't there be a similar reaction for babyfaces, where the cheers have nothing to do with the performance, rather the fans just love the character/person...and wouldn't that be a good thing...to have the fans in your pocket, no matter what, so why is the heel owning fans bad?
Ohhh X-Pac Heat, that's a topic that always gets attention and heat from both sides.
So here's my take on the subject. X-Pac Heat is a real thing, in the strict definition of the term. X-Pac Heat is supposed to indicate when you get a negative reaction for the performer or possibly the character as a concept. People would boo when X-Pac came out not because he was a Heel or anything, they were just really sick of him as a wrestler. I totally buy that this sort of heat can exist. Bo Dallas had it in spades on NXT for months.
That said, it's better than nothing. Literally, any heat, be it X-Pac or wrong or whatever, ANY reaction is better than dead silence. Silence is the real kiss of death. Booing someone half-heartedly because you don't want to see them wrestle any more is the wrong reaction to have since many people don't believe in X-Pac Heat as a concept and even if they do, hey, a reaction > none at all.
Of course, it tends to only happen to heels, since a face getting X-Pac Heat is just getting booed, so they turn him. Like Bo Dallas, again. Ironic cheering doesn't really happen unless you're up against someone the fans really don't like.
Like Bo Dallas.
So yeah, it's not a very exact term, since crowd reaction is not an exact science. If it was, someone would have worked it out and become a billionaire and put everyone else out of business with it.
If WWE developed a time machine and they signed you up with the promise that you could be transported to any time in history for your 1st 10 programs and you get to choose, what would be your 10, at what point in their careers, and why? Keep in mind there is a loophole: you can also choose tag partners from history and they don't count against your 10, so you could replace Neidhart in the Hart Foundation to work with the Bulldogs in 1986...or take Bret to Crockett and work with the Rock & Roll Express.
Hmm. Well, there is a rather consistent pattern I'd like to have followed in my occasional daydreams, if I was born in New York in the 62 or so, rather than Sydney in 82, and I somehow had booking power…
Andre The Giant in 1981: I would cut my teeth on the ‘big leagues' by starting strong as the plucky jobber who kept coming back to face Andre, I kept finding partners for handicap matches where they'd lose, until I'd eventually take him on one on one and, while losing, would gain his respect and get the rub that way. Because then I'd always have a hook, Andre raising my hand as a kid is a sure way to get my foot in the door for the rest of my career, as it were.
Bob Backlund in 1982: Backlund gets shoved to the side a lot these days, but back in the day, he was over and there was no-one better than him at the big blow off. I'd want my first main event program to be one with little pressure in terms of me having to carry it. I'd injure Backlund to turn heel after blowing a title shot, torment him for a bit then get all bloody and lose in the cage at MSG.
Hulk Hogan in 1983: I'd then jump to AWA and work a program with the very popular Hogan, where I'd cheat to win a few times, and while he won the blow off, I'd instantly have a credible "I've beaten Hogan" card to play whenever I could, plus hopefully I'd make friends with him.
Me/Piper V Hogan/T in 1985: First Wrestlemania Main Event, Thank You Very Much.
Me/Flair V Sting/Luger in 1988: Yeah, I'd be a Horseman. Would be less of a playboy more the Hired Gun role, Yamazaki Corporation hired me to ensure their Investment is solid, that sort of thing. Because dammit, I want to be a Horseman.
Me/Roberts V Savage/Undertaker 91/92: I really have some good ideas to work into this, I think. I dunno, just really loved that angle and want to be part of it.
Raven in 1995: Have to visit ECW, to help transition from Hired Gun to Grizzled Vet with Pool Cue. Not quite Terry Funk levels, but certainly Raven can go on about how I sucked up and attached myself to bigger stars all through my career…
Hulk Hogan in 1997: Money, Dear Boy.
Steve Austin in 1998: Money, Dear Boy 2: Money Harder.
Vince McMahon in 2001/2: Only because I have a VERY specific idea of what I'd do as I'd be in WCW in the dying days (Money, Dear Boy 3: Dream Warriors) then going to WWF to be part of the Invasion, sort of, then being special guest ref in Winner Take All (‘I've Worked for All of you, so all of you sign an agreement that me and my friends have a job, and I'll ensure a fair match') so as at the end I can lay out everyone and reveal an nWo shirt.
And then today I'd be in Regal's position, or being brought in to try and save TNA as head booker or something…
I was listening to an old Meltzer interview with Ricky Steamboat and a caller asked him which match was he most proud of and I thought he gave an interesting answer. He said for fans it comes down to his match with Savage at Mania or his match with Flair at the Clash and for him, it was Flair simply because they called the whole thing in the ring, while with Savage it was all mapped out with numbered sequences both guys could recite on demand. Essentially it's the jazz musician versus the symphony musician. I'm curious to hear the philosophy of an actual wrestler. Do you think the best matches are called in response to the fans, are planned to the last letter based on stuff that worked before, or some combination of the two? What would you say are the biggest downsides/dangers of Jazz and Symphony?
It depends a lot on the guy. Some guys like to have everything planned out to minute detail, others want to have leeway, and some just want to wing it. Although I am firmly in the leeway category (I want the start, the hope spots and the finish planned, and then big sections of "I beat you up for a few minutes") I don't think one is intrinsically better than the other. When you call it in the ring you can react to the crowd and work off their reactions better, but you can tell a tighter story if you have everything planned. But on the other hand, you can draw a blank or work at cross purposes when you wing it, and likewise the crowd can lose you or get lost yourself when it's planned.
It basically boils down to who is in there. To get the best match from guys, sometimes you call it, sometimes you plan it. And just hope you don't match up someone who insists on planning with someone who insists on winging it…
One critique I have of fans of both wrestling and sports in general is what I call the video game effect. I think we only see a wrestlers ability like it's a videogame rating. All we see is the performance on screen and from that we deduce far too much, greatness or mediocrity or just plain average. As fans we don't see that the guy's stuff looks so good because it actually hurts like hell and is dangerous, we don't see that a guy is a giant pain in the ass, always late, complaining, doing what he wants rather than what he's told, etc. We don't see the guy working through injury or saddled with a role that hides his true ability and constrains him, we don't see the guy who is beloved by his colleagues and superiors alike and goes about his work like a pro, maybe never spectacular, but always solid, reliable, and able to plug any hole. With all that in mind, do you think laymen (like myself and other fans) should recognize that there is far more we don't know behind the scenes, than what we actually know from TV, and maybe we should not be so quick to judgment, whether it's saying a wrestler is great, horrible, or pedestrian...or pretending we know who is valuable to a company and who isn't...or when somebody is being held back or pushed beyond their merit? Obviously as consumers we have the "right" to everything, but as a producer, what are your thoughts on the judgments and demands of us consumers?
This is a very interesting question, as I'm really torn on it. On one hand, I totally agree that armchair quarterbacking is not good, but on the other hand why should wrestling be any different from any other sport or show. You think Russo gets hate? Go to some corners of the internet and ask about how Moffat has ruined Doctor Who and/or Sherlock.
Thing is, being a wrestler has opened my eyes that, yes indeed, there is a lot of stuff that goes into a show that you don't know about. But on the other hand, you the fan do have the right to evaluate the show on its merits. Sometimes booking and performance has factors that aren't obvious to the consumer. But that doesn't change the fact that the booking and performance is what you see and what you're judged on.
Sure, the workers are going to judge you based on how you treat the boys and stuff, but the fans shouldn't care about that, they should just care about what's going on in the ring. But to do that, should you also care about the backstage stuff since that has an impact?
Overall, I think it comes down to levels. I think that you have to give an indy show the benefit of the doubt more. There are a lot more factors that can play havoc with an Indy show that are out of the hands of the booker/promoter. So I would people to be a little more understanding there. But with the big guns, they work the internet like they work everything else, plus given their status, they should be able to keep all that sort of stuff under control, they're supposed to be the top guys, the big boys, so they have to be held to a higher standard. So I think you can be more critical with the major leagues.
But overall I don't want the fans thinking about backstage, I want them focused on the ring, full stop. Let the wrestlers worry about backstage, you just enjoy (or not enjoy) the show.
And on that, I shall draw this edition to a close. Ryan Byers will be in next week, and I will be in Four Player Co-Op this week, so see you all then, and then in a fortnight. Cheers!